Since Humans Need Not Apply video there has not much been videos which supports CGP Grey's claim

Submitted by RavenWolf1 t3_y86qcp in singularity

At 2014 we had Humans Need Not Apply video by CGP Grey which sparked lots of discussion about AI and future of humanity. CGP Grey basically told us that we are new horses and eventually AI will take every job there is. However since then basically every single video about topic at Youtube had has narrative which parrots that old saying that robots/computers/AI are just tools and they will enhance us. That techonlogy will create new jobs for us all etc. I'm little worried about this one-sided discussion about this situation.

No matter if you search Youtube with term like "ai taking over jobs" or "will ai replace humans" basically all videos just say the same thing. It is like we are been conditioned to believe that way. It is like that is the fact and truth and we should shut up and listen the betters.

It seems like this is thing which have been taught in University of Economics as fact and everyone are just parroting those teachings without much thinking about the issue. When majority people believe that it is fact then parroted so much that basically nobody is publicly saying opposite expect in fringe sphere like here at Reddit. Basically nobody stop thinking what if.

123

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

0913856742 t1_isyc0u2 wrote

I imagine part of the reason is that there has not yet been widespread catastrophic workforce disruption due to adoption of AI and related technologies, and part of it is that the advancements we were hoping for seem to be taking longer than we expected, e.g. self-driving vehicles. And so there is a perception that these technologies are still way off, or that they will affect only a few narrow industries, or it's all happening in the background and isn't flashy, therefor it's nothing to worry about.

Kinda like climate change - maybe we can understand CO2 emissions and ocean currents and so on in the abstract, but hey, it's still snowing where I live, and I got bills to pay, so whatever, nothing to worry about, the penguins can wait. And then all of a sudden each passing year becomes the hottest year on record for some reason.

I imagine it's quite like that - it would require some widespread workforce disruption where many, many people across various domains of labour lose their livelihoods and not be able to retrain before the mainstream realizes we need to work on solutions, but by then the damage will have already been done.

For example in my country Canada, one of the biggest grocery corporations Loblaws announced they'll be testing these autonomous trucks earlier this month, and it doesn't seem to be talked about much in our media.

62

Neurogence t1_isyub9h wrote

Ray Kurzweil (arguably one of the main proponents of the singularity) recently stated AI will create more jobs for humans.

People love capitalism too much to imagine a world without work.

32

RavenWolf1 OP t1_isyyan8 wrote

I was pretty shocked that he thought that way too.

18

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_isz7uwu wrote

He is very much a "don't tax the rich, just grow the pie instead" type. Any time someone asks him about growing wealth inequality he falls back to that. So if your conclusion is that wealth equalizing is bad, then you're going to work backwards and believe that systemic failures of Capitalism don't exist, and how can you support that idiotic notion? By believing technology isn't causing the game to be continuously and increasingly rigged against the little guy.

It's a human response. And humans are kinda shit.

13

BearStorms t1_iszgn9o wrote

Yep, me too. It is obviously wrong argument anyways IF you believe singularity will happen at some point. With superintelligence on tap humans will be just bunch of moody toddlers in comparison. Why would you let us do anything at all?

11

RavenWolf1 OP t1_it00blz wrote

I think he said that because he is working in Google. It seems like all tech people say the same thing. Maybe they are scared that people will start to blame tech giants if they say that AI will take jobs. That is only reason why I can think why all the tech people say this.

7

kmtrp t1_it03qv4 wrote

Yeah! I saw OpenAI's CEO say the same crap, something like "this will augment productivity, it'll be a companion to all developers...". Man, you are talking about a software that can code without a human! WTF?

So I am shocked and disappointed at the lack of honesty. The people working on these projects know that speech is full of shit, right?

3

BearStorms t1_it0ar10 wrote

>this will augment productivity, it'll be a companion to all developers...

Well, it will, only now you will need 1 dev instead of 100. Ask illustrators in like a year or 2...

FML, I thought software development will be the last job to go...I may be sooo wrong (I'm a dev).

4

kmtrp t1_it4khep wrote

Same thing for me, a former full-stack developer. Isn't it crazy? I mean paintings and drawings, and freaking programming? Especially given the state of front development? Incredible times.

1

BearStorms t1_it4m4wv wrote

Honestly, we'll see. The image generation is a problem where even a very imperfect result is perfectly acceptable. The coding is much harder problem, and then you have to remember all kinds of regulation, etc. But it's coming for everyone eventually. Ironically the physical blue collar trades working in a very heterogeneous environments like a plumber are probably the safest...

1

FomalhautCalliclea t1_it4psvw wrote

Especially since Sam Altman (OpenAI's CEO) has been quite open and outspokenly extremely optimistic on tech progress, talking about things like "free energy" (fusion) and AGI soon, more or less.

He also spoke about UBI and a need to radically change our economy. I wonder if he (and others) have multiple opinions and faces they show selectively in regard with context.

1

kmtrp t1_it4q6bf wrote

Most probably, it's an obvious CEO trait too.

2

FomalhautCalliclea t1_it4qpv2 wrote

I hope it's a "Charisma -100 / Perception +100" rather than "Charisma +100 / Perception -100" character trait.

1

BearStorms t1_it0aiu2 wrote

I think you are right and that makes it even scarier...

1

haptiK t1_isz4lqi wrote

> Ray Kurzweil

why does this guys website suck so badly?

5

iNstein t1_iszv3yc wrote

Ray is right about AGI/ASI and the singularity. Beyond that, I consider his work to be self serving and horribly wrong. Fortunately none if this relies on Ray so we will get our new world regardless of his poor mid term predictions and misguided ideas of the society that will result.

3

Sashinii t1_isz8ahd wrote

Well said. There's no way there'll still be any economic systems post-singularity.

2

Sotamiro t1_isz9j4a wrote

They will still exist... in my simulations

11

RavenWolf1 OP t1_it00lpm wrote

Exactly! Like in games. I love all those strategy games and city building games. Those have to have economies!

5

Bakoro t1_iszogjh wrote

Economics will exist as long as there are people. Scarcity will always be a thing, it's essentially a law of the universe.

There is only so much beachfront property, only so many houses with an ocean view, only so many people who can live on the top of a hill.
One way or another there will have to be a way to decide who gets what limited resources, and who gets the new things first.

Even if you just make everything timeshare, so everyone takes turns with exclusivity of a thing, some people won't care about one thing but will want more of their favorite thing. Some things will be more popular.
"I'll trade you my week in Maui for a day in the glorgotron" you'll say, and I'd be like dang, that's a good deal, the glorgotron gives me a headache anyway...

It's just a matter of what people value, what people want exclusive access to, and what is limited. If nothing else, people's time will always be somewhat valuable into the distant future.

4

RavenWolf1 OP t1_it01dni wrote

>Economics will exist as long as there are people. Scarcity will always be a thing, it's essentially a law of the universe.

Economy sure but not money necessary. Economy does not mean money. But I agree. As long as humans values something then we create value for it. In human society something is always valuable, like beauty or friends etc. Value is which causes us to have standing in society. We always have something which differentiates us from others. We give value for things which others don't have.

Sure we can have infinite energy and resources but there will always be something which creates hierarchy in our world. We live in society after all.

2

Bakoro t1_it1bxzb wrote

>Economy sure but not money necessary. Economy does not mean money.

Money is a useful abstraction for value. How many chickens to a television, and televisions to the beach house is a hard problem.

If you have resource tokens, its basically the same thing. The right to requisition x food resources and y labor resources, and z land resources. Anything fungible which replaces direct barter ends up being similar.

If humans are to still exist, they'll have to be part of the equation in terms of directing the AI. Like, who decides what the AI spends its discretionary time on? If the AI doesn't have its own motivation and interests, or otherwise just allocates resources to human requests, that can be a kind of money in and of itself. Start off giving everyone an equal share of AI requests, and the requests which generate the most positive feedback from the community yields more time to the person or group who made the request, and people can trade AI time share just like money.

I personally like the resource allocation model. It's basically money, only it ties value to quantifiable things. That's only viable when you have highly mechanized everything where the energy and time costs are highly predictable, like a society mostly by AI.

1

Kinexity t1_isycxua wrote

At the end of the day automation will prevail and the question isn't if but when. It doesn't matter what people say or think as the economics will settle this. There is a simple proof of that based on two axioms (we assume it's extremely unlikely they are wrong):

  1. There is no job where there cannot exist a robot which will be able to replace a human.
  2. AGI can exist

As such we just need a robot and a system intelligent enough to run it. If you can build a supply chain run by only robots which builds robots in a robot factory faster than exisiting robots are thrown out you get a system which without any human input can output robots capable of replacing every human in their job (we assume AGI, and human-like capable robots have been reached).

It's reasonable to belive that transition to full automation is a form of phase transition of human civilization (phase transitions are a wider thing than just change of phase of physical substances). Similar to how when ice melts into water there is this additional amount of energy which doesn't go into heat but into breaking up the solid structure there may be additional amount of effort needed to go switch to full automation.

43

ArgentStonecutter t1_isykmlw wrote

> 1. There is no job where there cannot exist a robot which will be able to replace a human. > 2. AGI can exist > 3. AGI can be operated for less than hiring and supporting a human.

34

Snoo63541 t1_isyn11e wrote

Point #3 exactly. In countries where machines are expensive, jobs are still done by humans. In countries where humans are expensive, machines replace them.

15

IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE t1_isyqi5f wrote

There’s a critical threshold though, still distantly away, where enough jobs are fully automated that labor itself loses almost all of its value. If an entire supply chain and manufacturing process is fully automated from start to finished product, and those automated systems are maintained/upkept by other fully autonomous systems, then their operation costs become a non-issue. The economy only exists as a function of human trade. Autonomous systems do not trade nor do they require it. They will not have an economy to worry about.

17

ArgentStonecutter t1_isyuqa8 wrote

If that happens where's the incentive to keep paying for the electricity to power the factories making goods, the feedstocks the goods are made from, and where are you shipping them if there's no market? The owner will just mothball it until there's demand again.

2

iNstein t1_iszsg4k wrote

The electricity costs nothing to create. It is generated using equipment that is created by automation and run by automation. The 'feedstocks' or raw materials are mined using automation or grown using automation. Basically you have to wrap your mind around the idea that literally everything will be automated. There will be a market, just not one that uses money in any way. If I want/need a new widget, I go online, order ut and it gets delivered to my door. I don't pay anything as it is not required for the system to work. Meanwhile, the rest of the system makes sure to make a replacement of that widget ready for the next person. Ownership will be by the government on behalf of the people. Private ownership will be unnecessary as people will have whatever they want anyway so ownership would just be a burden.

5

ArgentStonecutter t1_it027zs wrote

I too want to live under fully automated luxury gay space communism, where the energy is generated and feedstocks are mined and goods are manufactured by replicating machines out there beyond the atmosphere where they don't have to deal with the fact that the whole Earth is already owned by somebody and none of those somebodies are ready to hand over their share of the pie to the state.

7

InvisibleWrestler t1_it0894p wrote

Finally somebody actually talking about ownership of resources. People forget that every mine and every oil well and every piece of uranium and every agricultural field is owned by someone already.

6

Rakshear t1_it021j5 wrote

You won’t even have to go to markets for most things, a 3d printer at home will (eventually) be able to make anything basic with raw materials, only copy right specific things will still need purchasing. But custom fit clothing, orthopedic shoes, basic jewelry of self designs generated from prompt art, some tools even, can all come from home based 3d printing. Even food one day, you won’t need to go to restaurants if you don’t want to, but a bag of brand name Goo and boop, French fries, chicken nuggets, whatever.

2

ArgentStonecutter t1_it1i84b wrote

"Why does everything taste like chicken?" - the young doomed sidekick, The Matrix, 1999.

2

Anenome5 t1_it1atm5 wrote

>AGI can be operated for less than hiring and supporting a human.

Yeah it's not nearly close to that currently. A human can be hired immediately for a monthly wage cost, a few thousand dollars.

A machine that can do what a human can could cost hundreds of dollars right now, with an AI that's far more advanced that even GPT3 and takes up entire datacenters, etc., etc. The human never breaks down or requires calling a maintenance crew either, etc.

Jobs will be here for a long time yet.

1

happy_guy_2015 t1_it1kn4s wrote

The number of industrial robots installed grew 30% last year, with half a million units installed. At that rate of growth, it will take about 30-40 years before industrial robots outnumber humans. That's a long time, but not that long... many Redditors reading this will not yet be at retirement age by then. And it's certainly possible that the growth rate may increase faster than 30% annually as technology improves.

1

Anenome5 t1_it5dzoh wrote

Industrial robots are special purpose, they aren't total replacements for what humans are good at. And they're significantly expensive and a general human-replacement robot would be an order of magnitude or two more expensive.

1

happy_guy_2015 t1_it6j770 wrote

Capabilities are going up dramatically, and costs will go down as volume increases and technology improves.

1

TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_it1mui8 wrote

Potential addendum: not operated, created. I think that if one is made, many can be made.

Though I question how certain we are about these assertions.

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_it1nv3r wrote

The capex of creating and training the human to AGI equivalent level does not show up on any budget, it's hidden in the opex of employing other humans, and the opex of employing humans who don't have to pay for the training because they're childless is about the same.

That's not true for AGI, so if you're going to include capex in the equation it makes the AGI more expensive.

1

Anenome5 t1_it1aoub wrote

IMO, people will purchase robots long before 'all jobs are gone' and use them to make stuff and do work. In the future, the rich will own many robots and the poor fewer, but all will own robots. And the economy will still function because, though robots are doing the work, scarcity is still a factor, prices will not be zero, but your robots may be the ones earning income for you.

People of that era will live far better than we do, with massive price deflation and far better access to goods.

5

Quealdlor t1_it1jsy6 wrote

Prices of about everything will gradually trend towards zero, but never actually reaching it. So people in the future will have it much better than we do. Just like we have it much better than people a thousand years ago. For example cost of energy is going to decrease substantially.

5

Anenome5 t1_it5dt0c wrote

Yes, exactly, but most people don't have the economic training to reach that conclusion, much less understand the mechanics of it.

1

R3StoR t1_it1iinw wrote

Robots will never truly replace the world's oldest profession IMO. Something about the err...human touch.

Maybe we should all start preparing for new careers.

1

Quealdlor t1_it1jmf3 wrote

You are completely wrong. Sex robots and VR will completely replace human sex. I think you underestimate how much better will it feel.

5

R3StoR t1_it9y38n wrote

Well apparently the Sybian feels better for many people (women especially) but most of those same people still prefer human encounters.

Are real humans really that disgusting? /s

1

Down_The_Rabbithole t1_it6lat1 wrote

There is another aspect that you didn't take into account yet:

> Work has to be productive and add economic value

What the covid lockdowns shows us is that there are a lot of "bullshit jobs" out there that don't provide any value and aren't missed when gone but still exist just to keep people busy. It's more than likely that humans will keep having work just because our society likes it for people to do labor, even if that labor is useless.

We as a society need to recognize that labor for labor's sake is bullshit and that we should just provide people a decent quality of life without having to go through this useless ritual of sacrificing 8 hours a day to something that doesn't add value to society.

I'm afraid of the opposite of what people claim in this thread. I'm not afraid of mass-unemployment. I'm afraid of people not losing their jobs when their labor becomes obsolete

1

augustulus1 t1_it3a0c6 wrote

There are jobs where a robot never can replace a human per definitionem.

For example, a handcrafted item can't be made by a robot because it would not be handcrafted, even if it 100% identical to real handcrafted items.

0

Sandbar101 t1_isyg2k2 wrote

Grey was right the entire time

24

RavenWolf1 OP t1_isyhugd wrote

Yes he was.

10

DKNinjas t1_iszeavc wrote

I wish him and Brady still did Hello Internet. That was by my anecdotal evidence my first podcast.

2

TopicRepulsive7936 t1_isyjqv0 wrote

What we got to remember is that the economy is incredibly artificial, work for work's sake. So things might look a lot like they do now, workers slowly losing their leverage, until the transformation of everything.

18

iwasbatman t1_isycnc1 wrote

Hard to know for sure as it is something unprecedented.

IMO the problem is not about technology is about society and economic models. I think there will be a period of upheaval and social unrest like nothing we've seen before but after that a true golden era for humanity will start and will last a long time.

We are programmed to believe we live to work because it has been like that since humans were smart enough to live in groups. Breaking that way of thinking is hard.

There will be a point where work is going to be something people do if they want to but not because they have to.

14

freeman_joe t1_iszelr6 wrote

We need to first survive climate change, covid and we need to solve dictators, racism and global extremists.

−1

iwasbatman t1_iszq75w wrote

Yeah, I mean if not then automation killing jobs is not an issue.

A lot of current problems will be solved with AI.

5

iNstein t1_iszu2mx wrote

So........ You cannot eat, cannot work, cannot sleep until these things are dealt with? Strangely I feel that humans can walk and chew gum at the same time. Shock! Horror! We can do more than one thing at a time. But you go put your life on hold until everything is tickity boo in your world view.

2

freeman_joe t1_it0zmuq wrote

If climate change progresses on fields there won’t be enough food. It is already happening in multiple countries.

1

iNstein t1_it1ombj wrote

Seems you can't read and comprehend at the same time. Let me try spell this out for you in as simplistic terms as possible.

WE CAN DO BOTH.

That does not mean we can only do one thing. We create an automated world with humans not needing to work AND we fix climate change AND we deal with dictators AND we deal with racism AND we deal with global extremist.

2

Sashinii t1_isysra9 wrote

The argument that AI will create jobs like in the past is insane considering that AI will do everything; it's as stupid as saying iPods will forever be in vogue despite the smart phone.

The only reason most people work is to have basic necessities; when AI speeds up molecular nanotechnology research and creates a nanofactory, we'll have those things (plus more) anyway.

Even in the absurd hypothetical scenario of people wanting to do manual labour outside of a legacy simulation via full dive virtual reality for the pure novelity factor, who would hire them? Corporations will be obsolete at that point.

14

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iszjs92 wrote

"I was thinking this video was getting out of date… then the AI art and the GPT-style language models arrived and I am more concerned about this topic than ever. " - CGP Grey

10

Ezekiel_W t1_isyyodx wrote

There is no doubt that robots and artificial intelligence will replace ALL work in the near future. The fact that the public at large doesn't realize what is happening does not change the outcome. We really need both politicians and the media to take UBI seriously.

9

bluegman10 t1_isza2s4 wrote

>There is no doubt

You (and others) have no doubt, but that belief isn't universal at all, so I wouldn't say doubt is nonexistent.

2

IcebergSlimFast t1_iszo70q wrote

How about: “There is no reasonable / defensible doubt.”

2

bluegman10 t1_it0byve wrote

Again, that's an opinion, and opinions aren't universally held.

I don't think not believing in 100% automation in the the near future is unreasonable.

2

IcebergSlimFast t1_it12iml wrote

Re-reading the post you originally responded to, I apparently missed or skimmed over “replace ALL work” when I first read it. I agree that it’s not at all unreasonable to doubt 100% automation in the near future.

What I think is certain (or very nearly so) is that starting in the fairly- near future — likely within a 10 year time-frame — AI-enabled automation will cause substantial disruption to global labor markets and workers. I think it’s also reasonable to predict that nearly all jobs will be capable of being automated within a similar time-frame. However, I agree that full automation will take longer.

1

AsthmaBeyondBorders t1_iszdenm wrote

There are problems with UBI too, UBI can't be the ultimate tool to solve the problem. If we implement UBI today without taking care of other issues too what do you think is going to happen? UBI will be effectively curbing social mobility to the minimum. It is taking money from the government to subsidize minimum living conditions, at the moment there is little to no support for UBI in amounts that would allow people to save money for big investments, it is UBI for survival and basic dignity that most economists and politicians in favour of it speak of as of currently. In essence it is funneling tax money to capitalists who own the businesses you depend on to survive, with the added advantage that at least you get to choose how to spend the money instead of the government pre-selecting what everyone gets. But most of the UBI distributed will ultimately end up at the hands of capitalists as you spend and don't save, if we don't change some other things first.

2

BearStorms t1_iszki5k wrote

What do you propose?

1

AsthmaBeyondBorders t1_iszmbnb wrote

For starters since it is obvious UBI can get rid of the lower end of wealth distribution (which is the whole point if the fear is mass unemployment) but we don't want to have UBI be all funneled to the top percentiles it is obvious we have to set artificial limits on wealth accumulation. Now we get rid of the bottom end of wealth distribution (no job, no income) but we also get rid of the top end of wealth distribution (can't be filthy rich, past some point your marginal taxation quickly approaches 100%).

Second, it is important to distinguish between unconditional basic income and basic income that is only handed out if you are unemployed. If people can get UBI + income from work then social mobility is much easier to be achieved. Then there is the amount of UBI each person gets: if UBI is for survival only then you can't use this for investments because it is hard to save. If UBI allows you to save and eventually invest in your own business ventures then social mobility is easier again.

Third, if we are implementing UBI because of mass unemployment and then only those who get UBI + income from work can have decent social mobility, we would need to allow more people to work in a world where work is increasingly scarce. This means we need to reduce the amount of hours people work, so that more people can work, less working hours > more people working.

Further, if we transform medium to large private enterprises into cooperatives, then funneling UBI into companies is suddenly not a wealth concentration trap, because cooperatives distribute profits among workers instead of small quantities of shareholders that own majority of shares, and to the top of hierarchies via agency-theory solutions.

Finally, if better distribution in this system generates hyper Inflation in basic necessity goods and services, we degrow superficial industries to control Inflation in basic necessities via supply elasticity.

That's my view but what do you propose?

3

BearStorms t1_iszo61c wrote

Agreed that reducing work hours should be the first solution. It is a travesty that the 40 hour work week didn't shrink in over 80 years.

I think some countries are going to implement 4 day work week, I think Iceland for example.

The US will need another FDR soon...

5

iNstein t1_iszkti8 wrote

Your 'capitalists' will be richer if UBI is higher. The higher, the better for them. Expect the UBI rate to increase until it meets maximum production which will be orders more than it is today.

1

cy13erpunk t1_isyv681 wrote

have patience

that video is aging like fine wine/whiskey

remind yourself in another decade

we're 8 years out from that video and 100% on track for everything it says

8

Bakoro t1_iszkyut wrote

Eventually, nearly all jobs will be taken by AI. That's not a bad thing. That's the thing we should be running at, full speed.
People don't need jobs, people need things like air, food, shelter, sometimes clothes, and prefer to have something to keep themselves occupied.

Jobs are supposed to just be an inconvenient thing we have to do to get the things we need and want. What jobs turned into is a means to control the masses. "The economy" is a way for people to exploit people. There's no way that someone doing a "critical" job shouldn't be able to own a home or have good healthcare, yet that's become the standard in the U.S and other places.
"The economy" is full of bullshit nothing-jobs which only exist to try and move money around. Fuck jobs for the sake of jobs. Fuck having to justify your own existence by bowing down to some corporation.

Let AI do everything it can, and allow humans to have the free time to do as they wish.

In the past, new technologies opened the doors to more products, more technology, but we still needed people to do things. Technology freed up people to do other things that we wanted to get done, but couldn't put resources to. New jobs got created in the manufacture, installation, and repair of machines.

AI is not going to be like that. AI may create some new jobs, but if it goes well, it'll take more jobs than it creates, because the new jobs it creates will also be filled by AI.

Ideally, the only jobs people will have are going to be the ones they want. The only work people will do will be the work that fulfills them.
There won't be anything to stop people from making art, doing crafts, doing research and development.

What's more, people who have ideas will be able to actually explore those ideas, they'll be able to get AI to do the grunt work instead of needing to convince hundreds of people to do something, or convince a bank to give them millions.

The real questions are going to be about how resources are distributed, because even in a AI utopia, there's still only limited amounts of land, there's only so much beachfront property, and not everyone can have their own personal theme park and sprawling castle.

7

Powerful_Range_4270 t1_it3gycx wrote

But as VR improves and the overall quality of life improves because of tech then where you live in the world matters less.

3

Branoch t1_it33gvz wrote

Just in my lifetime I have watched my career vanish. I am a machinist and a tool and die maker, and just over the last 10 years of doing that job I have watched CNC (computer numerical control) drop the number of and required skill level needed from employees down to about 10%. We no longer need as many skilled tradesmen in manufacturing. Usually an engineer designs the part and a cad/cam program (computer aided drawing/computer aided machining) spits out the code needed for the cnc machine to make the part, then a minimum wage employee will load material into 3-5 machines that then spit out finished parts. No new jobs are created and entire departments are automated out. 6 minimum wage workers easily replace 60 workers (as these machines remove a lot of secondary processing as well as the manufacturing itself and are MUCH faster doing it) at the cost of half their collected yearly salaries. It's already here, we just don't talk about it.

4

ihateshadylandlords t1_iszlg9y wrote

That video is eight years old, talks about self driving cars and even with exponential progress, we STILL don’t have that for the masses. That’s why I have my tagline and it’s probably why AI isn’t on the average person’s radar yet.

3

AdditionalPizza t1_isyv3gv wrote

I have a bit of a theory on this actually. It's a combination of a couple things. The AI effect being the most obvious, where people will say AI can't do something, and when it does they dismiss it because it's just computer calculations. A moving goal post of sorts.

Another reason is it's still in its infancy. Yes, if you know the proper search terms for specific AI you can find some stuff. Like go ask a random person if they know what Codex is, or Chinchilla. If you don't follow closely or care about AI and tech, you probably won't have heard of this unless someone you know is very interested in it and talks about it. Even then, I have some friends I talk to this stuff about but they aren't super interested in it so they don't go and look into things too much.

The last reason, some people might think it's borderline a conspiracy theory but hear me out. Big tech companies and professionals close to the creation of AI are well aware of how the general public would react to "Hey check out this AI, only a few more steps until it obliterates your usefulness at your current job" so they actively are championing this stuff as a tool to help people be productive. They are navigating everything by treading lightly until they are ultimately at the point of releasing some transformative AI and then there's no going back. There's no policies to be made quick enough to keep up with the advances and hold them back. The last thing tech companies want at this point is to be stifled on the road to AGI by some policy makers trying to save jobs. If they can get to the point of being able to bring down enough sectors quickly, it will be too late to do anything about it.

We're talking about the most brilliant minds in the world, the ones in charge of aligning AI properly. Of course they have to set everything up before they can go for the spike.

2

blueSGL t1_iszcalu wrote

> I have a bit of a theory on this actually. It's a combination of a couple things. The AI effect being the most obvious, where people will say AI can't do something, and when it does they dismiss it because it's just computer calculations. A moving goal post of sorts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

Also I've a feeling a lot of jobs are going to be made redundant by collections of narrow AIs you don't need AGI to replace a lot of jobs just a small collection of specialist AIs that can communicate. I wondered why the Gato paper (from what I read of it) didn't try any cross domain exercises. e.g. get a robot arm to play an atari game.

1

AdditionalPizza t1_iszdu3b wrote

I should've mentioned the AI effect isn't my theory, it's just a part inside of my theory haha.

>I wondered why the Gato paper (from what I read of it) didn't try any cross domain exercises. e.g. get a robot arm to play an atari game.

I believe this is being done by something with google, and likely others. I'm not sure why specifically they didn't do it with Gato a while back now, but it is definitely being done with other models.

1

R3StoR t1_it1mvb1 wrote

Humans live to struggle. A lot of our emotional wellbeing is built around our sense of our personal struggle and how that reverberates in our relationships with other people. Some people who've lived close to death, say they'd never felt truly alive before that.

Compare this with a spoon fed life of AI and robots pandering to humans spending their life persuing iterative novelty. We've maybe even seen the future of AI/VR in the first person games that we already have. Maybe another round of fighting highly realistic bloody battles... without the pain....or death...??

Of course in this dystopian AI/robot future everyone's apparently "yearning for"(!?) we could still keep doing other "more valuable activities"(!?).... hobbies?? scientific research? philosophy? fucking 24/7?

(As an aside, I'd probably opt to spend most of my time with nature and farming...and a bit of fucking. I will probably be exterminated for getting in the way.)

Anyhow, take away a person's "struggles" and they may go crazy grappling with their inner self and (the already obvious answer to the problem of) trying to find meaning in an existence where their life is basically "unnecessary".

For some perspective, most people in the modern world think that life without war is ideal (and I'd agree). But if you could time travel and ask a Viking, some of them might have felt that a life without ever going to battle would be a life missing life's peak experience. And maybe they'd already figured out the finest way to enjoy a round of "ultra real VR" (without respawn options) without ever contemplating that they were already living in a simulation?! (As we may be also of course)

As humans, we've already lost so many of the major and minor experiences of being alive I feel.

If the singularity is all about "having more of whatever we think we want" then get ready for.....

"Mundane Living 2030".

2

RavenWolf1 OP t1_it7eyn6 wrote

I want to "struggle" in games and VR but not in real world.

2

R3StoR t1_it9wz23 wrote

If you give up your body, both would be possible. I guess that's where we are headed. Ultimately becoming cyborgs or brains implanted into robotic bodies. Then we can live in space or a dying hot planet...and enjoy our games /s.

1

RavenWolf1 OP t1_ita1est wrote

And here is the problem which I dislike so much. Many say that we need to work because we need that struggle. These people probably think that we can't have games and VR because we have to be here to struggle to do some meaningless jobs even when we have robots doing everything. These people probably just invent and forces society to do some meaningless jobs.

2

R3StoR t1_itf48zp wrote

I'm up voting you because I'm in agreement about the meaningless jobs part but I also have a different take about what a "meaningless job" entails.

For me a meaningless job is a job that doubles down on being sedentary. From office job to the sofa - back and forth.

Humans need to "work" physically.

It doesn't have to suck but the gym for 30 minutes a day also isn't enough. And most people will elect to do the minimum, given a choice. Maybe our post-singularity-UBI should be paid in steps taken per day?

Our physical form is the result of millions of years of survival level exertion and "work" - for most of the daylight hours, every day. The "work" required to get food (either hunting, gathering or farming it) is what we evolved towards - and it is therefore essential and meaningful. Not needing to go do shit jobs sitting at an office all day may help free us up a lot...but to do what? Once "free", there's going to be a lot of idle and restless people roaming around. Do you think gun laws are gonna get seriously tougher before the singularity!?

Either way, if we stop physical work as a mass level contingency for our existence, our bodies will atrophy (which is happening already). It's far more complicated that just stretching and using our muscles though. Getting sunlight, fresh air, adjusting focus, getting contact with microbes in the soil and nature are all fundamental to our health.

Of course maybe we can somehow combine VR/AR/AI to enhance our physicality - but it's unlikely to work out this way due to commercial influence. The money will go where there's more money to be made. So we'll see the technology confining us to our unhealthy indoor existences even more than we already are - because of profit (and control!). And venturing outside will be to run the gauntlet with "restless people" who will feel the need to create some real life drama.

1

tms102 t1_isyc71v wrote

>No matter if you search Youtube with term like "ai taking over jobs" or "will ai replace humans" basically all videos just say the same thing.

Fantastic research skills. Looking for videos on YouTube. Hilarious.

1

RavenWolf1 OP t1_isyhp4m wrote

Yes but those are videos what people find and then they think that it is the truth. Majority people does not "research" things much outside main media, youtube and social media.

13

tms102 t1_isyhzg4 wrote

Majority of children and teens you mean?

−7

RavenWolf1 OP t1_isyi8dz wrote

And boomers who are just reading mainstream newspaper and watching linear TV news.

11

IcebergSlimFast t1_iszo13n wrote

Cultured Boomers prefer to receive their viral disinformation and propaganda via the Facebook.

2

Atheios569 t1_isylby9 wrote

The last jobs available will be trade jobs. I say that because of the complexity of the machine needed to build the things we build. We may even have to change the very way we build if we want to implement machines to do those tasks (plumbing, electrical, carpentry, etc).

1

iNstein t1_iszplro wrote

We are already 3D printing homes. Very much doubt that trades will last longest, we just adapt our building processes to the machines.

1

Atheios569 t1_iszpzlo wrote

Yes, I’m aware, and there are teams of people that have to setup the machines as well. People will have to maintain those machines also. That is until we invent a robot with human capabilities, and thought.

Who are we kidding though, we won’t make it long enough to see an AI takeover of jobs.

2

iamAliAsghar t1_isyvknl wrote

There are only two paths ahead, I think. Either a dystopia, where crippling poverty is rampant and the haves have absolute power and wealth or everyone gets a food on their table along with universal basic income and there are no monopolies, wars are over, governments are stable, corporations no longer exist and human happiness is prioritized.

1

okcrumpet t1_isz4j5d wrote

It’s 100% because self driving tech is 10 years behind schedule. That was the biggest anticipated disruption in his video

1

ItIsThyself t1_iszryv2 wrote

I think AI is amazing, and it will change the world as we know it. I also believe that it is inevitable that AI will eventually take over many jobs currently done by humans. However, I do not believe that this is necessarily a bad thing. I think that it will ultimately lead to a better world for everyone.

There are many reasons why I believe that a world in which AI has taken over many jobs currently done by humans will be a better world. First, it will lead to a more efficient world where resources are used more efficiently. Second, it will lead to a world where there is less need for human labor and, thus, less exploitation of human workers. Third, it will lead to a world in which many jobs that are currently considered to be "menial" or "unskilled" will be replaced by AI, leading to a more egalitarian society. Ultimately, I believe that a world in which AI has taken over many jobs currently done by humans will be a better world for everyone.

1

World_May_Wobble t1_it01qm0 wrote

The alternative is too disruptive to imagine. Do you want careful, incremental thinkers to imagine a world where everything we know, all the pillars of our civilization, go out the window? It's so alien to us, we don't know if our species can even survive in proximity to that paradigm, nevermind describing the problems and solutions of that world.

I don't think anything useful can be discussed about a post-AGI world, and to say anything at all about it requires such leaps of imagination, that serious thinkers are wary to go near it.

1

ConsiderationKind498 t1_it067fw wrote

If a company produces 100 widgets and buys a new suite of software that increases productivity and allows them to produce 110 widgets then they have the opportunity to cut headcount by 10% resulting in a reduction in demand for labor which will slowly start to depress real wages

1

pcake1 t1_it1fosh wrote

Did AI write this post? Sounds like it.

1

Black_RL t1_it1iyh8 wrote

It’s a moot point, UBI is what we should be refining/implementing.

We are obsolete, we can’t compete with AI + robotics.

And most important, we don’t want to compete, we want to enjoy life.

1

AgginSwaggin t1_itoeney wrote

Well, most humans hate their jobs. So honestly I don't think we need to worry so much. If you don't work in the industry, you'll be "working" socially. Meaning, you take care of your kids, your parents, seeing friends, pick up hobbies, travel, etc. There's still tons of "jobs" to occupy humans with, just not paying jobs. But in an infinite economy, UBI should help take care of that.

1

p0rty-Boi t1_isyp6c0 wrote

“It’s just freeing up time so you can focus on what’s more important”. You are right there is such consistent talking points that run counter factual to reality and basic reasoning that some sort of concerted marketing campaign downplaying the danger to meaningful employment AI represents.

0

Gaothaire t1_isyle54 wrote

Changing culture is such an incredibly vast undertaking, and it's often not even worth it. Focus on improving yourself. If you get hit with Divine inspiration, your message will be heard and listened to without trouble. If you haven't done the internal work you'll just be parroting sterile words that Life has little hope of crystalizing around.

−1

YoghurtDull1466 t1_isyo7up wrote

Human brains are just too good. Will hardware ever surpass the neural processing efficiency? Probably not. Until then we will be the decision makers.

−5

Kaarssteun t1_isyuyby wrote

>Will hardware ever surpass the neural processing efficiency?

it absolutely will. Welcome to r/singularity

5

YoghurtDull1466 t1_isz55ju wrote

Dude can you please show me because a Brain has trillions of neurons yet we can’t even outprocess one, no?

−4

Kaarssteun t1_isz620w wrote

How familiar are you with AI?

2

YoghurtDull1466 t1_isz6g3l wrote

I understand that it is a vast overgeneralization of many specific topics, theories, and methods of modeling systems of equations to produce an output from a specific input using more and more complex turing machines.

0

DexHexMexChex t1_isypel8 wrote

>Until then we will be the decision makers.

Even if say the automation still needs say a prompt to deliver the art that's required and fine tuning what this really means is project managers will stick around for a while not the actual labourers.

Most people have to follow stipulations while employed what they're allowed to do, how they're supposed to do it and when they're supposed to do it.

Although unemployment will not be absolute an AGI or many specialised AIs that are good enough to automate the tasks of basic IT support, self driving cars and checkouts, administrators/receptionists, accountants much of the paralegal/lawyers background work, will dramatically reduce the amount of workers required in order for said work to be done.

1

YoghurtDull1466 t1_isz69mv wrote

Yeah. That’s fine. We have to do something and I’m socially incapable so I use work as a way to interact with humans. It’s a necessity for me.

1